colon_pow:Zeppelininthesky: SkinnyHead: Mrtraveler01: What would you have preferred Obama have done instead?

I think that this crisis was serious enough to warrant his attention, as commander in chief. He can't just tell underlings to do "whatever." Unless he gives specific authorization to take military action, it's not going to get done. Underlings are not going to stick their neck out and make those decisions for him.

Again, what should Obama have done? Please be exact.

he should have flew off to vegas for a fund-raiser!!

Yes, he should have resumed his regular duties after telling American forces in the area to do whatever is necessary to defend the embassy, instead of micromanaging, because it's not the President's JOB to micromanage. Glad you agree.

Mrtraveler01:SkinnyHead: Mrtraveler01: What would you have preferred Obama have done instead?

I think that this crisis was serious enough to warrant his attention, as commander in chief. He can't just tell underlings to do "whatever." Unless he gives specific authorization to take military action, it's not going to get done. Underlings are not going to stick their neck out and make those decisions for him.

He should have assembled his crisis team to consider what options they had and then he should have decided what to do himself. If doing nothing was the best option, then he should have been the one to decide that nothing would be done. He cannot evade his decision-making responsibility by saying that he told someone else to do whatever needs to be done. He needs to make the call himself and then be responsible for his decision.

SkinnyHead:Mrtraveler01: SkinnyHead: Mrtraveler01: What would you have preferred Obama have done instead?

I think that this crisis was serious enough to warrant his attention, as commander in chief. He can't just tell underlings to do "whatever." Unless he gives specific authorization to take military action, it's not going to get done. Underlings are not going to stick their neck out and make those decisions for him.

And Obama should have responded by...?

... making the decision himself.

Zeppelininthesky: Again, what should Obama have done? Please be exact.

He should have assembled his crisis team to consider what options they had and then he should have decided what to do himself. If doing nothing was the best option, then he should have been the one to decide that nothing would be done. He cannot evade his decision-making responsibility by saying that he told someone else to do whatever needs to be done. He needs to make the call himself and then be responsible for his decision.

So, he was supposed to micromanage, instead of letting the commander in the area do his job? The commander knows exactly what forces are where down to the man, and knows the security down to the man. I am not saying that Obama did not know what we have in the area, but the on site commander should to do his job. Obama has the overall responsibility, not to micromanage.

halfof33:Lord Dimwit: Er...so saying "we don't know exactly how this came about yet" because they didn't know exactly how it came about yet is a horrible lie? And then providing more up-to-date information as it came in is also lying? Really?

It looks like you went out of your way to make up some BS about "providing up-to-date information as it came in," which is completely untrue, kinda like how Obama went out of his way to avoid calling it terrorism.

Don't make the same mistake Obama did.

You mean the one that's gotten him into an endless masturbation loop on FOX News?

Marcus Aurelius:halfof33: Lord Dimwit: Er...so saying "we don't know exactly how this came about yet" because they didn't know exactly how it came about yet is a horrible lie? And then providing more up-to-date information as it came in is also lying? Really?

It looks like you went out of your way to make up some BS about "providing up-to-date information as it came in," which is completely untrue, kinda like how Obama went out of his way to avoid calling it terrorism.

Don't make the same mistake Obama did.

You mean the one that's gotten him into an endless masturbation loop on FOX News?

He has yet to tell us how he knows it is made up. Just like what the actual lie consists of.

halfof33:Lord Dimwit: (a) He called it an "act of terror" within 24 hours.(b) Why is what he called it such a big deal? I mean, really? Even if I agreed that he lied about it being a terrorist attack (which I do not), what else did he lie about? Was that it?

I'm going to have to ask you to read the thread. Thanks.

16.5 thread in a nutshell here.

Lie, deflect, ignore questions, post out of context quotes, ignore reality, lie some more, ignore more questions, tell people to "read the thread," because he already ignored those questions a few times.

SkinnyHead:He should have assembled his crisis team to consider what options they had and then he should have decided what to do himself. If doing nothing was the best option, then he should have been the one to decide that nothing would be done. He cannot evade his decision-making responsibility by saying that he told someone else to do whatever needs to be done. He needs to make the call himself and then be responsible for his decision.

It is, in many circumstances, perfectly acceptable to delegate decision making authority to subordinates. I don't believe Obama's decision to do so here constituted wrong-doing or was even a poor choice, however, I recognize this as a point where you can validly disagree.

justtray:halfof33: Lord Dimwit: (a) He called it an "act of terror" within 24 hours.(b) Why is what he called it such a big deal? I mean, really? Even if I agreed that he lied about it being a terrorist attack (which I do not), what else did he lie about? Was that it?

I'm going to have to ask you to read the thread. Thanks.

16.5 thread in a nutshell here.

Lie, deflect, ignore questions, post out of context quotes, ignore reality, lie some more, ignore more questions, tell people to "read the thread," because he already ignored those questions a few times.

And yet, people still try to engage it in conversation. I can't imagine why.

Well, lets take a look. He made the same claim someone else did, which I responded to by quoting the 60 Minutes transcript earlier in this very thread, which led to moving of goalposts.

I realize you think that makes me a bad person, but quite frankly even I am getting am getting farking sick of the administration apologists.

So no, i don't have patience with the same old nonsense.

He can read the thread. Thanks, though, for posting.

Yeah you probably shouldn't be moving the goalposts. I'm not sure why you keep thinking those context stripped quotes, which we've already deconstructed for you in previous threads, including ones that led to you using 'right' in the same context as the president, support your argument that he didn't call the attack terrorism. He called it an act of terror within 24 hours. At best you're being semantically dishonest. At worst, you're just repeating debunked lies.

AND, no you still have not answered why, even if you were correct, which you're not, why it matters.

Zeppelininthesky:SkinnyHead: Mrtraveler01: SkinnyHead: Mrtraveler01: What would you have preferred Obama have done instead?

I think that this crisis was serious enough to warrant his attention, as commander in chief. He can't just tell underlings to do "whatever." Unless he gives specific authorization to take military action, it's not going to get done. Underlings are not going to stick their neck out and make those decisions for him.

And Obama should have responded by...?

... making the decision himself.

Zeppelininthesky: Again, what should Obama have done? Please be exact.

He should have assembled his crisis team to consider what options they had and then he should have decided what to do himself. If doing nothing was the best option, then he should have been the one to decide that nothing would be done. He cannot evade his decision-making responsibility by saying that he told someone else to do whatever needs to be done. He needs to make the call himself and then be responsible for his decision.

So, he was supposed to micromanage, instead of letting the commander in the area do his job? The commander knows exactly what forces are where down to the man, and knows the security down to the man. I am not saying that Obama did not know what we have in the area, but the on site commander should to do his job. Obama has the overall responsibility, not to micromanage.

To be fair, when it came to bil Laden he personally flew the helicopter in and provided a diversion while Seal Team 6 took the guy down. At least that's my understanding of what happened.

Justray: were you on of those guys who claimed that when Obama said "right" to the question on 60 minutes, what he was "really" saying was "I hear you" instead of answering the question?Because that was hilarious and awesome and incredibly sad. Oh man, I actually felt bad for those guys!And I'll the same thing I say in every thread: I get that you don't care that your government lied to you. I get it!

Cletus C.:Zeppelininthesky: SkinnyHead: Mrtraveler01: SkinnyHead: Mrtraveler01: What would you have preferred Obama have done instead?

I think that this crisis was serious enough to warrant his attention, as commander in chief. He can't just tell underlings to do "whatever." Unless he gives specific authorization to take military action, it's not going to get done. Underlings are not going to stick their neck out and make those decisions for him.

And Obama should have responded by...?

... making the decision himself.

Zeppelininthesky: Again, what should Obama have done? Please be exact.

He should have assembled his crisis team to consider what options they had and then he should have decided what to do himself. If doing nothing was the best option, then he should have been the one to decide that nothing would be done. He cannot evade his decision-making responsibility by saying that he told someone else to do whatever needs to be done. He needs to make the call himself and then be responsible for his decision.

So, he was supposed to micromanage, instead of letting the commander in the area do his job? The commander knows exactly what forces are where down to the man, and knows the security down to the man. I am not saying that Obama did not know what we have in the area, but the on site commander should to do his job. Obama has the overall responsibility, not to micromanage.

To be fair, when it came to bil Laden he personally flew the helicopter in and provided a diversion while Seal Team 6 took the guy down. At least that's my understanding of what happened.

You are comparing apples to oranges. One was security for an embassy, the other is a special operation that he has direct control over as CIC. None of the embassy day to day operations are even under the president's control.

Cletus C.:Zeppelininthesky: SkinnyHead: Mrtraveler01: SkinnyHead: Mrtraveler01: What would you have preferred Obama have done instead?

I think that this crisis was serious enough to warrant his attention, as commander in chief. He can't just tell underlings to do "whatever." Unless he gives specific authorization to take military action, it's not going to get done. Underlings are not going to stick their neck out and make those decisions for him.

And Obama should have responded by...?

... making the decision himself.

Zeppelininthesky: Again, what should Obama have done? Please be exact.

He should have assembled his crisis team to consider what options they had and then he should have decided what to do himself. If doing nothing was the best option, then he should have been the one to decide that nothing would be done. He cannot evade his decision-making responsibility by saying that he told someone else to do whatever needs to be done. He needs to make the call himself and then be responsible for his decision.

So, he was supposed to micromanage, instead of letting the commander in the area do his job? The commander knows exactly what forces are where down to the man, and knows the security down to the man. I am not saying that Obama did not know what we have in the area, but the on site commander should to do his job. Obama has the overall responsibility, not to micromanage.

To be fair, when it came to bil Laden he personally flew the helicopter in and provided a diversion while Seal Team 6 took the guy down. At least that's my understanding of what happened.

Obama's lack on involvement in the Benghazi scandal makes it even more of a scandal. Or something

Anyone remember the multi-week biatchfit that the callous and uncaring President George W. Bush got when he didn't land Air Force One smack in the middle of Katrina-submerged New Orleans and instead flew over it and just looked out the window? If that criticism was valid, so it this. Welcome to the club, hypocrites.

jjorsett:Anyone remember the multi-week biatchfit that the callous and uncaring President George W. Bush got when he didn't land Air Force One smack in the middle of Katrina-submerged New Orleans and instead flew over it and just looked out the window?

No, I think the real outrage was that Bush had someone incompetent head FEMA just because he's one of the President's buddies who did absolutely nothing to help out New Orleans or Louisiana and left them twisting in the wind.

What lies? You keep repeating that like you've made a point. There were such protests around the ME preceeding the attack and that had the intelligence and community resources stretched thinner than usual even if they were not in Benghazi.

In terms of Obama not letting the terrorists who did this know everything America knew right away?

He did that because he's not stupid and most likely on the advice of the CIA who's listening post it was.

jjorsett:Obama's lack on involvement in the Benghazi scandal makes it even more of a scandal. Or something

Anyone remember the multi-week biatchfit that the callous and uncaring President George W. Bush got when he didn't land Air Force One smack in the middle of Katrina-submerged New Orleans and instead flew over it and just looked out the window? If that criticism was valid, so it this. Welcome to the club, hypocrites.

[i45.tinypic.com image 332x245]

Ah, when your arguments hold no water, resort to accusations of hypocrisy.

As Mrtraveler01 just pointed out, it's a falsehood, since it was quickly deemed that the story had no merit since it was not safe to enter New Orleans or the outlying areas and that Brownie was a total f*ckup as FEMA head, oh, and not to mention that the libs didn't beat a dead horse about nothing 5 months later (the Bush in Air Force One thing vs. Benghazi), they rightfully beat a dead horse about Brownie sucking massive amounts of cock.

halfof33:Justray: were you on of those guys who claimed that when Obama said "right" to the question on 60 minutes, what he was "really" saying was "I hear you" instead of answering the question?Because that was hilarious and awesome and incredibly sad. Oh man, I actually felt bad for those guys!And I'll the same thing I say in every thread: I get that you don't care that your government lied to you. I get it!

justtray:Still lying, still deflecting, still not answering the question.

Still a liar.

OH MY GOD! It was you. Oh man, that was hilariously pathetic.

Kroft: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya attack.Obama: Right.Kroft: Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?Obama: Well, it's too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans and we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice one way or the other.

To answer your question: I get that the slurpees don't care that the government lied. I stipulate to it. They have the government they deserve.

jjorsett:Anyone remember the multi-week biatchfit that the callous and uncaring President George W. Bush got when he didn't land Air Force One smack in the middle of Katrina-submerged New Orleans and instead flew over it and just looked out the window? If that criticism was valid, so it this. Welcome to the club, hypocrites.

It just has your diapers in a bunch that Obama will never look as incompetent as Bush.

The mystery always has been the third stage - the aftermath, or more accurately, the coverup.

Too bad these assholes weren't so concerned with the lies about WMD in Iraq. Hell, the ONLY Rightie who was concerned at all was McCain(This was before he turned into an asshole). Nobody else could be bothered to give a Fark about a war that has cost us billions of dollars and thousands of lives, but they have a major stick up their collective ass about an attack that killed 4 and cost thousands of dollars.

Get some kind of perspective, you partisan asshats. Jesus, it's impossible to remain an Independent when you can't scrape up a single person who isn't mentally unhinged and dumb enough that the bag of hammers kicked your ass on Jeopardy!. The one guy you had got basically laughed out of the Primary for not being enough of a prick.

halfof33:justtray: Still lying, still deflecting, still not answering the question.

Still a liar.

OH MY GOD! It was you. Oh man, that was hilariously pathetic.

Kroft: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya attack.Obama: Right.Kroft: Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?Obama: Well, it's too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans and we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice one way or the other.

To answer your question: I get that the slurpees don't care that the government lied. I stipulate to it. They have the government they deserve.

All governments lie. You do realize this right? This seems to be your biggest issue. We have asked time and time again. What was the reason for the lie? What were the consequences of the lie?

You have never answered these questions.

My only conclusion, given your laser like focus on "the lie" is that you were adopted and you didn't find out in a good way

justtray:halfof33: Lord Dimwit: (a) He called it an "act of terror" within 24 hours.(b) Why is what he called it such a big deal? I mean, really? Even if I agreed that he lied about it being a terrorist attack (which I do not), what else did he lie about? Was that it?

I'm going to have to ask you to read the thread. Thanks.

16.5 thread in a nutshell here.

Lie, deflect, ignore questions, post out of context quotes, ignore reality, lie some more, ignore more questions, tell people to "read the thread," because he already ignored those questions a few times.

And when he says anything REALLY blatantly idiotic, he gets his post removed when someone points it out. He's a troll, nothing more. He doesn't believe a word he types, Maybe he's a mod, or a friend of one who does it for kicks. Maybe he's one of the RNC's paid shiat-flingers. All I know for sure is that his dishonest bullshiat isn't even worth looking at.

halfof33:justtray: Still lying, still deflecting, still not answering the question.

Still a liar.

OH MY GOD! It was you. Oh man, that was hilariously pathetic.

Kroft: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya attack.Obama: Right.Kroft: Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?Obama: Well, it's too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans and we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice one way or the other.

To answer your question: I get that the slurpees don't care that the government lied. I stipulate to it. They have the government they deserve.

eraser8:DeaH: My understanding on Air Force 2 is that it is any plane secure enough to carry the president or vice president.

Your understanding is incorrect...or, at least, incomplete.

The name of the jet customarily used by the vice president is the C-32. Its call sign is Air Force Two only when the vice president is aboard. If the vice president is travelling on a C-37A (a Gulfstream V), that aircraft is Air Force Two. ANY Air Force Aircraft that carries the vice president is designated Air Force Two.

LordJiro:And when he says anything REALLY blatantly idiotic, he gets his post removed when someone points it out. He's a troll, nothing more. He doesn't believe a word he types, Maybe he's a mod, or a friend of one who does it for kicks. Maybe he's one of the RNC's paid shiat-flingers. All I know for sure is that his dishonest bullshiat isn't even worth looking at.

Yeah, OK tin foil, great post.

NEXT!

justtray:Still lying, still deflecting, still not answering the question.

NEXT! You partisan slurpers are pathetic. It matters because the government lied, because their intelligence was incompetent or dishonest. I get that none of this makes any difference to you apologists.

In what way is Obama declining to label the Benghazi attack "terrorism" during his first national address on the subject a lie?

How does Republican insistence on all the details being made public make anyone safer?

How is it not, in fact, anything other than a shameless and transparent piece of political machination by the right designed to strengthen their political position and weaken their opposition?

Obama was walking a fine line between informing and reassuring the public while not letting the terrorists know what was being done behind the scenes to get them and the traitorous morons on the right (like you) kept trying to push him over.

The only real scandal involved in "Benghazigate" is the GOP's disregard of national security in order to try to lie their way to increased political power.

That's nothing to be proud of, son.

But go on and keep making a fool out of yourself here.

At this point for me it's kinda like sitting in a comfy chair inna summertime out at the lake drinking a nice cold beer and watching a moth bump it's head into a lightbulb over and over and over again.

quatchi:How does Republican insistence on all the details being made public make anyone safer?

You are perfectly content with being fed lies, but not just lies, ridiculous preposterous lies that were being ridiculed by the President of Libya.

And bizarrely, you turn it into a partisan thing. Because we all KNOW that if it was a Republican president, you'd be rushing to defend his lies too. lolz. You do know that the lie that the attack spontaneously arose out of an anti-video protest did not foster "national security" or whatever bull shiat you are trying to sell, particularly as that story was known to be false, in LIBYA, you know where the terrorist were?

It isn't just that you make stuff up, it is the stuff you make up is so idiotic.

Enjoy your beer, Citizen, the government will tell you everything you need to know.

Biological Ali:Seriously, why even have "posting rules" if a troll as obvious as halfof33 isn't going to get a timeout? Beyond a certain point you might as well just give up the whole pretense altogether.

I put him on ignore. I don't mind arguing with folks, but he is just obnoxious.

Zeppelininthesky:Biological Ali: Seriously, why even have "posting rules" if a troll as obvious as halfof33 isn't going to get a timeout? Beyond a certain point you might as well just give up the whole pretense altogether.

I put him on ignore. I don't mind arguing with folks, but he is just obnoxious.

It's a total crapshoot. A farker in another thread laid down an obvious troll post and then about 15 posts later called himself out on it. I reported it and the thread never started magically downsizing.

halfof33:Calling the Administration on an obvious lie (that the attack spontaneously arose out of anti-video protest) does not equal making all the details public. You made that straw man up.

Obama referred to the attacks as an "act of terror" in his first public statement on the matter on September 12 from the Rose Garden 1 day after the events occurred.

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for," he said. "Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."

The next day on September 13 in Vegas Obama said this...

"And we want to send a message all around the world - anybody who would do us harm: No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America,"

The administration did not say that the attack was spawned by the anti-video protests going on in the region that was speculation by Susan Rice, that later proved erroneous.

Which rather supports Obama "ask questions first, shoot later" attitude on this thing.

I'd like to say you made that straw man up but you and I both know you are just reading off the GOP's script here.

quatchi:The administration did not say that the attack was spawned by the anti-video protests going on in the region that was speculation by Susan Rice, that later proved erroneous.

Oh dear.

Oh dear oh dear. Speculation by Susan Rice? Sept. 14: At a White House press briefing, Press Secretary Carney denies reports that it was a preplanned attack. "I have seen that report, and the story is absolutely wrong. We were not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent. That report is false." Later in that same briefing, Carney is told that Pentagon officials informed members of Congress at a closed-door meeting that the Benghazi attack was a planned terrorist attack. Carney said the matter is being investigated but White House officials "don't have and did not have concrete evidence to suggest that this was not in reaction to the film."

As for this government lies to you BS. They are politicians that is what they do.

You are being whipped into a frenzy for ratings and being used as a puppet in the scheme of money grubbing radio/tv pundits. They are using you to make them money that is all.

This is not, never has been, and never will be a scandal. It is a beast best left dead, but the right seems to be full of vultures forever picking at bones looking for that last scrap of meat.

The part that chaps my ass is that no one is asking how to better secure the Embassies. Rather, lets attack the President and the military and try to make the administration look bad.

Try leading some time GOP it might actually get people to follow you. Nobody wants to vote for the jealous little 15 year old gossip on facebook, and that is what your party has become.

leaveobamaalone.jpg

I am not saying leave Obama alone. I personally don't like the drop policy, gitmo open, the war, or drones being used. The difference is that I tend to converse about things in an adult manner.

You continue to run around calling names, asking for proof that will never be enough, and generally making a jackass out of yourself and by extension the ideals you espouse.

Innocent until proven guilty is how it works in the USA. If you don't like that perhaps you should move elsewhere. Barring that, can we actually get you to express what you feel the wrong doing here was? So far your position has changed to just yelling or mocking anyone in the thread, what is it you are hoping to accomplish here?

halfof33:quatchi: The administration did not say that the attack was spawned by the anti-video protests going on in the region that was speculation by Susan Rice, that later proved erroneous.

Oh dear.Oh dear oh dear. Speculation by Susan Rice? Sept. 14: At a White House press briefing, Press Secretary Carney denies reports that it was a preplanned attack. "I have seen that report, and the story is absolutely wrong. We were not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent. That report is false." Later in that same briefing, Carney is told that Pentagon officials informed members of Congress at a closed-door meeting that the Benghazi attack was a planned terrorist attack. Carney said the matter is being investigated but White House officials "don't have and did not have concrete evidence to suggest that this was not in reaction to the film."Your own link contradicts your claim. Oh dear....

So twice Carney says they don't know what is going on and are unsure of any concrete evidence but he said it two different ways. The second of which you cut into the middle of a sentence and could have been about people being sick after watching Passion of the Christ. Cutting a quote like that is bad and makes your point look bad. Hell all Carney was saying in the second quote was, we don't know if this is in reaction to a film or not. It is not an admission by any stretch.

Also, you should buy or use a thesaurus, there are alot of words out there that mean the same thing, some phrases even mean the same thing. It is amazing how language works.

halfof33:Sept. 14: At a White House press briefing, Press Secretary Carney denies reports that it was a pre-planned attack. "I have seen that report, and the story is absolutely wrong. We were not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent. That report is false."

Libya's president, said on the 14th of September (3 days after the attacks) in his first address on the subject that he thought it was a pre-planned attack by Al Quaeda in order to assure the west it wasn't done by remnants of pro Ghadafi loyalists. Carney was wrong to label it as false but was most likely acting under orders in order to not tip off the AQ guys who still hadn't been brought down yet.

"don't have and did not have concrete evidence to suggest that this was not in reaction to the film."

You don't read too well, do ya?

Saying one couldn't rule out a possibility for sure doesn't mean one is certain that possibility actually happened.

Your sad attempt to make Benghazi a scandal fails yet again.

If anything Obama handled the aftermath of Ben Ghazi better than Bush did with 9/11.